Trial data for precision analysis of a three-dimensional mandibular mechanical advantage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data presented in this manuscript describe craniofacial landmark coordinate values, muscle and load moment arm lengths, and mechanical advantage rates for constructing a three-dimensional model of masticatory muscles. Cone-beam computed tomography scans from 30 subjects (aged 12-19 years, 16 females) were used. Thirty-six craniofacial landmarks were identified. Subsequently, the moment arms for 7 muscles and their corresponding load moment arms at incisor and molar positions were determined. Then, the three-dimensional mechanical advantage for each muscle and tooth position was calculated as the ratio of muscle moment arm to load moment arm. This procedure was repeated three times by a main examiner and once by two other examiners. The Friedman test and the square root of the 'method of moments' variance estimator were used to compare data among examiners and calculate random errors, respectively. Although the values for the craniofacial landmark coordinates and biomechanical variables are very close, differences were found between measurements, especially in the interexaminer comparisons. Values served as the basis for reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) and errors (average mean of absolute differences) analysis in the research paper titled "A three-dimensional method to calculate mechanical advantage in mandibular function: Intra- and interexaminer reliability study," published in the Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".